Higher education 'intellectual diversity' bill debated at Statehouse

COLUMBUS, Ohio (WCMH) – A bill that would make several changes to higher education in Ohio took another step forward at the Statehouse on Wednesday, but the fate of the legislation remains unclear. 

Senate Bill 83, the “Higher Education Enhancement Act,” passed the Senate back in May. And after extensive changes were made to the legislation, still, on Wednesday, 13 supporters and 135 opposers testified about the bill.  

The bill would do a number of things like change and standardize the tenure evaluation system across universities, but most of the conversation centered around the portions of the bill that would require intellectual diversity is demonstrated for course approval and prohibit mandatory diversity equity and inclusion classes.  

“What race is he or she, what gender is he or she, what religion is he or she, those things should play no role in academic life,” Ohio University Professor Richard Vedder said.   

But Professor at the Ohio State University, Christopher McKnight Nichols, said the bill is already having a negative effect on recruitment.  

“Every candidate for a faculty opening that I’ve spoken with has asked in some way, shape or form about Senate Bill 83,” Nichols said. “There’s an unequivocal problem happening here, which is that this bill is preventing us from recruiting the best people to Ohio state and institutions across the state.”  

He said one concern is about the wording of prohibitions against anything that might infringe on peoples’ opinions.  

“Faculty will self-censor, students will have a chilling effect and the totality will probably be less free speech, less free dialogue,” Nichols said.   

But supporters of the bill like Vedder said this bill will foster open conversations, unlike what said he sees now.  

“There’s a lot of self-censorship going on in higher ed,” Vedder said. “Students are afraid to speak up, professors are afraid to speaker up because I might say something that rubs them the wrong way and they retaliate against me.”  

Vedder said he thinks the bill will accomplish the protection of true free speech on campuses across Ohio.  

“I think people should be able to say what they want as long as it’s reasonable and factual and I think universities should pretty much let them say what they want,” Vedder said. “The university itself is nothing more than a safe, a forum, where ideas can be discussed.”  

Nichols said he feels like free speech is exercised well in the classroom and on campus. 

“Conservative speakers come to campus, liberal speakers come to campus, students seem to feel quite free to speak in class from what we can tell,” Nichols said.

Other proponents of the bill, like Chairman of Do No Harm, Stanley Goldfarb, said he struggles with DEI requirements in higher education.    

“The problem with diversity is, it sounds wonderful, but the goal of it is to treat people differently on the basis of race,” Goldfarb said.   

Goldfarb said, especially in medical school, DEI teachings should not be part of the curriculum. He said this bill is the appropriate approach to improve higher education across the board.   

“In my view it calls for a true individualized, liberal approach to the way students are taught both at the undergraduate level and medical school and will eliminate a divisive view that doctors are treating patients in a bias fashion,” Goldfarb said.   

Nichols said the bill is vaguely and ambiguously worded.

“11 full drafts later, we still have, in some ways, no idea what it may do to higher ed,”  Nichols said. 

But, despite three hours of testimony on the legislation, Speaker of the Ohio House Jason Stephens (R-Kitts Hill) still said the bill will not stand the test on the House floor.   

“From a weather report, if you will, from the House, the votes aren’t there to pass that bill, that’s just where it is,” Stephens said. “The House is the arena of ideas, we have to have that conversation and the challenge and the back and forth of what is a good idea or not and that’s part of the process.”   

Chair of the House Higher Education Committee, Representative Tom Young (R-Washington Township) said he thinks the bill is more palatable to House members now, 11 versions later.  

“We are evolving in an educational environment that has many, many opportunities for everyone and we want to keep it that way,” Young said.   

When asked whether he thinks the bill will have any more amendments made to it in his committee he said, “I do not, verdict’s out.”  

Young said this bill will not have another committee hearing next week, as they work through the process to read through testimony and finalize votes.